Re: [ga] Good News

["Pascal Bernhard - cube" <pbernhard@cube.de>]

Jeff and all assembly members,

On 30 Nov 2001, at 17:17, Jeff Williams wrote:

>   BORooN?  I am not familiar with that?  Any URL references?

boroon.net - BORooN = Business Oriented Root Network
I posted a URL about our White Paper a few days ago in this list.

> > >   No "Board" of any particular type of kind.  Rather it is a manner
> > >   [...]
>   None in specific as I already stated.  Rather a method.

Sorry. We may play with words for a long time. But I haven't that 
time.

> > For ICANN and most of the people out of here, all roots which are not
> > managed by ICANN are alternative roots.
> 
>   Not so any longer.

? Please specify.

> > Please don't expect people
> > out of the classical industry (or old economy) to understand what is a
> > root. Among the alternative roots, there are inclusive and exclusive
> > roots. No.  There are inclusive and competitive Root structures.
> 
> > The definition of inclusive and exclusive seems to differ from
> > community to community. I use inclusive roots as an expression for a
> > root which includes the *official* roots.
> 
>   There are no "Official" Roots any longer.  There are simply Inclusive
> and competitive root structures.

Who states that? If this is one of your statements, I can accept it as 
your point of view - which is not wrong as is. If no "official root" 
exists, this has to be a statement from ICANN itself. Did I miss 
anything?

> > The result of having many inclusive roots, is that they show on a
> > common namespace (ICANN) and on own namespaces which may be different.
> 
>   Yes this would be a working definition of a Inclusive root structure
> except ICANN doesn't own the Legacy/USG Root's.  The USG DOC/NTIA does. 
> Hence perhaps, your confusion...

Okay. But I'm not interested in the formal structure. The actual 
strucuture is interesting. Differing roots exist simply because
(a) ICANN doesn't seem to be able to fulfill its contractual role: 
developping the Internet by setting up more technically _and_ legally 
_stable_ TLDs.
(b) The legacy/USG roots set up the TLDs ICANN defines as "legal".
(c) ICANN's process for submitting TLDs lasts too long and costs to 
much.
(d) Beside the forum structures and public meetings of the BoD and 
of the constituencies, the real, practical decisions are taken 
elsewhere.

Please don't forget, that the Internet has to be a useful instrument for 
communication and is not an aim by itself. That's why it doesn't 
matter, if roots are named inclusive or official and who formally 
decides about the legacy roots.

> > >   What is a hit you ask?  Hummmm?  Well it is in essence an event
> > >   when a
> > > stakeholder/user visits a particular Web site.
> >
> > Jeff, I know what a hit is.
> 
>   Than why did you ask?  >;)

This was not a question, but a comment about the usefulness of a hit 
as a statistical data.

> > That states, that new.net is running an adequate market strategy. Do
> > you look at new.net as an inclusive/competitive root structure?
> 
>   Yes.

Okay. I suppose this is true, when I use your definition of an 
inclusive/competitive root.

> > Do
> > you think the reaction of ICANN against new.net is adequate?
> 
>   No.  It in fact is anti competitive in it's nature.  However
>   thankfully
> Done Evans made the DOC/NTIA's position somewhat clear.
> That being essentially that the USG/DOC/NTIA will not do
> anything to harm or thwart competitive or inclusive Root structures or
> registries.  But also will not assist them either.  And that is fine.

Agree with that.

Regards,
Pascal
================================
Pascal Bernhard
cube
Geschäfte werden von Menschen gemacht...
pbernhard@cube.de
http://cube.de/
http://boroon.de/
FON: +49-6352-753725
FAX: +49-6352-753726
Mail: Im See 3 - 67295 Bolanden
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html